In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Why we're so upset....Reasons and Examples
Comengetit
Member Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hello, this thread is dedicated to cut and paste articles and stories from around the internet. These snippets will help to clear up a few of the misconseptions where gun owners and constitutionalists are concerned. We are not a bunch of crazed lunatics, we are becoming aware of the ever present beast that is this country's government. Don't take our word for it, read just a few or read them all, you won't believe what you've been missing.
This thread is not for the posting of personal opinions, if you wish to voice an opinion, please cut and paste the story into a new thread where you may debate or discuss the topic of your choosing. Thank you to all who post articles, stories, and snippets here for all to read. Please try and keep your additions within the scope of our intention. That is to enlighten those who have not yet woken up to our governments intentions. The first three should give you an idea as to what we are looking for. One more thing, if you wish to post an article or story of your own authoring please make sure your post is supported by facts, remember this is not a thread for opinions.
Thank You & Enjoy Your Reading!!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
This thread is not for the posting of personal opinions, if you wish to voice an opinion, please cut and paste the story into a new thread where you may debate or discuss the topic of your choosing. Thank you to all who post articles, stories, and snippets here for all to read. Please try and keep your additions within the scope of our intention. That is to enlighten those who have not yet woken up to our governments intentions. The first three should give you an idea as to what we are looking for. One more thing, if you wish to post an article or story of your own authoring please make sure your post is supported by facts, remember this is not a thread for opinions.
Thank You & Enjoy Your Reading!!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Comments
Below is a letter that sums up what is wrong with the our union of Sovereign states (but like always, do some research to find out if this is true, then you have the knowledge and the understanding).
(((( Please review the data concerning the subversion of our nation at web sites
"THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM OF MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A)" - http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm
and "Admiralty Courts in Colorado?" - http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/admir.html
Inform all of the members of the veterans organizations in your town and concerned citizens everywhere to the exact extent that we have been misinformed.))))
This Treason and Tyranny by the bankers, the lawyers and judiciary, the bought politicians, and other vested interests is not what we or our ancestors fought and died for.
It is time for all men who took the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to be fully informed and take the actions necessary to uphold their oath. This is no time for us to rest on the laurels of our past. The best action we can take is to inform all the people so they can make fully informed decisions at the ballot box.
Thank you for your attention and assistance in passing this data along to We the People!!
The Letter below is restored from a page that disappeared from the WEB
AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU have the ability to understand the information in this letter. YOU have the ability to understand the present law and past law, the Constitution. That's right!...I'm saying the Constitution is past tense, as a restrictive document on Congress. I do not make this statement lightly and I can prove it.
The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Note - of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:
"Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...........use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."
The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." - Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.
By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you'll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law, being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of the Flag.
"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come on land. Next a court case:
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law govern's contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:
"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)
It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.
"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state's Constitution, said:
"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)
This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review:
"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.
Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:
"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution..." "In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ...And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." -- Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
"The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."
"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."
"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." -- Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I'll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let's say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn't. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.
All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.
"It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise." -- Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847
When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!
The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It's up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king's government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don't it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:
"Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions." Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that "the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?.... Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads." -- Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.
I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster's Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen, which I won't go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case where common law was over turned. Read the following definition to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:
"Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note - tort feasor means wrong doer, what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. -- (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)
Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did not affect citizens of the United States:
"Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enemy."
Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:
"My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933
Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government." -- Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933
The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nations 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said "money is the root of all evil" The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their *. Read the following Congressional quotes:
"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation--they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation--to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933
"That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave." -- Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933
What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our childrens fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)
The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:
"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."
Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:
"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." - United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death....But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers." - Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933
The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." - Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973
You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed." - (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)
So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as:
One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. - 1 Kent 73.
He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.
Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king's special favor, during time of war; - 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we've been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]
"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship." - Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.
"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an "alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder." - Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.
"By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy' as if he were born there." - Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.
Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress' actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:
A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914.
Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:
"The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." -- Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.
Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I'm not even talking about the obvious which we have already covered, read the following:
"The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917." -- Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.
How about Clinton's new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.
"The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)"
How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:
"...And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager's to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers..." -- (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago
What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.
Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?
For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?
For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalisation of private property, and "above all," censorship.
With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalisation (communism).
However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.
Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalist "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.
Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.
Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.
Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.
The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe:
The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.
The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honourable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.
The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.
However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.
Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Antifederalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.
To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).
Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law." Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.
Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.
However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.
Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organisations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defence, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).
Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.
The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.
No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.
The time to organise resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria:
freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment);
the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment);
the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment);
the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).
For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.
"The United States should get rid of its militias." -- Josef Stalin, 1933
"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied." -- William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, 1825
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
For many years, our federal government has been gradually eroding many of our most fundamental Constitutional rights, and it is currently engaged in a concerted effort to totally eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. The activities of this administration are so hostile to individual Freedom and to our Constitutional Liberties, and those activities are so willingly accepted by the majority of the people of this country, that there is serious doubt about the continued viability of our nation as a free representative republic.
The attack on the right to keep and bear arms is just one aspect of the assault on our Freedom, but that particular attack involves a campaign of lies, deceit, and disinformation so extraordinary in its scope and so pernicious in its intended effect, as to merit special attention. If public policy is to be pursued by reasoned debate pursuant to Constitutional principles, rather than by mass hysteria, an understanding of, and respect for, the fundamental facts of the issue must be held by all concerned.
There is a wealth of documentary evidence -- debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, debates in the State Ratification Conventions, letters and documents written by many members of the founding generation of Americans, contemporary newspaper commentary, the text of many of the original constitutions of the States as well as the provisions of most of the constitutions presently in force in the States today, and in the treatises of political philosophy widely read and relied upon by the Founders in creating our government -- that the Founders intended that the individual citizens of the new United States would retain their right to keep and bear arms, and retain their right of personal self defense. That evidence has been added to over the intervening years by decisions from numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and by commentary from many learned jurists and scholars.
Beyond that clear documentary evidence of the intent of the Founders, there stands the historical context in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, debated, and ratified. The Revolutionary War for Independence began in earnest when a rag-tag group of colonial Minute Men met the British troops on the town green of Lexington, Massachusetts, on the morning of April 19, 1775. The British were marching to Concord, for the purpose of arresting the rabble-rousing John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and of seizing the muskets, gunpowder, and shot that had been accumulated by the colonists in Concord. Hancock and Adams were warned and readily eluded capture, but the stores of arms could not be moved.
In the years leading up to that April morning in 1775, the American colonists had often confronted the British authorities, and had protested many of the actions of the British government. To protest taxes, the colonists pelted British troops with snowballs in Boston Common; to protest taxation without representation they dressed up as Indians and threw tea into Boston harbor; to protest the Stamp Act that infringed on their freedom of speech, they boycotted British paper goods. But it was only when the British moved to confiscate their weapons that the colonists actually organized an armed force in opposition and actually opened fire on the British troops. It was in defense of their right of self-defense that the American colonists fired the "shot heard 'round the world".
Twelve years later, it was against that backdrop that the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to organize a new national government. At that convention was proposed a Constitution for the new central government. The purpose of that Constitution was to unambiguously define the structure, the powers, and the authority of the new government.
That any government has an inherent tendency to usurp power and to oppress its citizens was a truism that the Founders considered beyond dispute, and a danger that they took numerous steps to guard against in drafting their new Constitution. Their fundamental premise was that any powers not specifically granted to that national government by the People in their Constitution -- the enumerated powers, and powers necessary and proper for carrying into execution those enumerated powers -- would be beyond the legitimate authority of that government. Simply put in modern terms, the States and the People of the new United States said to their new national government, "If the Constitution doesn't say that you can, then you cannot."
Nowhere in that Constitution was the federal government given any authority whatsoever to disarm law abiding citizens, and thus even without the protection of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the authority to disarm law abiding citizens did not then, and does not now, exist. That absence of enumerated authority alone should settle the issue of "gun control" with finality.
But then consider the historical context of the Revolutionary War, the "citizen soldier", States jealous of their sovereignty, the inherently oppressive tendency of government, and a People acutely conscious of the long and costly war fought to secure their Liberty. And the "shot heard 'round the world" fired in defense of their right of self-defense. What would the reaction have been to anyone suggesting that the new national government be given the authority to disarm the citizenry? Certainly if such a proposal were made, it would have occasioned, at the very least, extremely heated debate. Such a proposal and the ensuing debate would have been recorded by someone, somewhere. It would have been the topic of debate in at least some of the State ratification conventions. Nobody today claims that such a proposal was ever made -- it wasn't -- let alone that such a proposal was debated -- it wasn't -- or that the federal government was ever actually granted such an authority -- it wasn't. Clearly, nowhere in the Constitution is such authority found, or even hinted at.
But people today do not claim that such authority was specifically and intentionally granted. Clearly, it was not. People today make an even more astonishing claim than that: they claim that such authority simply exists, even without ever having been proposed, debated, granted, or ratified!
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated long weeks over the precise terminology to be used in their new Constitution. Those delegates very carefully considered the implications of any powers granted to, or withheld from, the national government, and they argued for days over the implications, meaning, and effect of specific words and phrases they used. Yet many people today contend that the federal government has the authority to disarm the citizenry, and that such a momentous power exists even without any authority having been specifically granted by the Constitution, even without such authority ever having been proposed or debated in the Constitutional Convention, or in any of the State ratification conventions; that the power to do so simply exists even without such a suggestion ever having been made by anyone, anywhere, at any time during the founding and ratification period. Such an idea is precisely opposite to the very nature of the limited government of clearly enumerated powers created by the Founders.
But the Founders went even further than the limited and enumerated powers contained in the body of the Constitution itself. At the insistence of many of the States, they added a Bill of Rights. Many of the States refused to ratify the proposed federal Constitution without the addition of a Bill of Rights, and many States submitted proposals of fundamental rights that they insisted be protected by the Bill of Rights. The purpose of that Bill of Rights was to specify certain fundamental individual rights that were considered to be so important to Liberty as to merit special protection, beyond the protection afforded by the Constitution itself for all of the retained rights of the People.
The States and the People wanted to make it absolutely clear that those fundamental rights were unquestionably beyond the reach of the national government. The language of the resulting Bill of Rights is absolute and unambiguous: "Congress shall make no law."; ".shall not be infringed"; "The right of the People to be secure.shall not be violated"; ". nor shall private property be taken."; ".the accused shall enjoy the right."; and the final two imperatives: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."; and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." The framers of the Constitution did not say "should not", or "may not", or "might not". They used the clear, mandatory, commanding language "SHALL NOT".
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual rights of the citizens against government intrusion. It was not designed to protect the rights of government -- such a contention is absurd. Yet that is precisely the absurdity upon which rests the argument of those seeking to disarm law abiding citizens. The Second Amendment, many people today claim, protects only the right of the federal and State governments to keep and bear arms, and only within the context of police forces and State National Guards. Protects against whom?
Does the First Amendment protect the right of the government to Freedom of speech and of the press? The right of the government to Freedom of religion? The right of the government to peaceably assemble.to do what.to petition itself for redress of grievances?
Does the Fourth Amendment protect the right of the government to be secure in their persons (what is the government's "person", anyway?), houses, and papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures? By whom?
Does the Fifth Amendment protect the government against double jeopardy? The right of the government against self incrimination? The right of the government not to be deprived of its life or liberty (what is the government's "life" and "liberty") without due process? The right of the government to just compensation for property taken for public use?
Does the Sixth Amendment protect the right of the government to a speedy trial? The right of the government to confront the witnesses against him ("him" is the word used, not "it")? The right of the government to counsel?
Does the Eighth Amendment protect the government from cruel and unusual punishment?
And when the Tenth Amendment protects the rights of the States, it specifically uses the word "States". Twice. It clearly distinguishes "States" from "People" as two separate entities. It is thus obvious that when the Founders meant "States", they were fully capable of saying so. In the Second Amendment they did not say "States", they specifically said "the right of the People.shall not be infringed". The People.
The idea that the Bill of Rights protects governments and not people is demonstrably absurd and irrational, as is clear from the above suggestions. Yet despite all that, are we supposed to believe that the Second Amendment, alone among the Bill of Rights, protects only the government, and not the People? Are we supposed to believe, although the Second Amendment uses the word "People", that among all the other Bill of Rights provisions that also use the word "People", the Second Amendment alone really doesn't mean "People", it means "States", or federal government, only? Yes, that is precisely what we are asked and expected to believe.
The officials of our government know that they do not posses the legitimate authority to disarm law abiding citizens. So with the aid of a duplicitous national media, this administration seeks to incite mob hysteria to achieve its agenda of eliminating the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our government can enact any laws it chooses, no matter how illegitimate, and it unquestionably possesses the raw power to disarm the citizens of this country pursuant to those laws, if it so chooses. What is there to stop government officials who have repeatedly shown their utter contempt for the Constitution? But the exercise of such power would be the lawless act of a lawless government, without even the slightest pretense to Constitutional legitimacy. It would be a tyranny of force, a dictatorial usurpation of power aided and abetted by mass public hysteria. Such an act of lawlessness would be the final nail in the coffin of our Constitution, and the final abandonment by our government of the Rule of Law. And it will toll the final death-knell of our Freedom.
As a nation, we are already dangerously far along the road towards accepting the unbridled rule of force by our government. We are increasingly governed by policies established, not by laws duly enacted by elected legislators, but by judicial edicts arising from lawsuits, and by mandates from unelected and unaccountable regulatory bureaucrats. We watch our government move from one lawful industry to another, ignoring the legislative process and imposing its will by regulation and the threat of lawsuits, leaving its victims only the choice between surrender and bankruptcy.
First it was tobacco, now firearms, next perhaps alcohol, sport utility vehicles and maybe all automobiles, pharmaceuticals, fast foods.the list is literally endless. And that list grows longer as those bureaucrats learn that they can get away with imposing their will and ideological agenda through force, intimidation, and the threat of lawsuits. And as they do so, our democratic institutions, and the will of the People of the country, become increasingly superfluous, except to the extent that the people are needed as props to supply the necessary mob hysteria. We watch our government demonizing people, groups, entire industries, for the purpose of whipping up a mob frenzy to validate its attacks. And we remain silent.
What will be the next target of vindictive federal potentates? We don't know, we only pray that it will be someone else and not us, and that they will leave us alone for a little while longer. That is no way for a free People to live. That is how slaves under totalitarian dictatorships live. From where does a president, or any government bureaucrat, get the authority to decide that a legal product, wanted and used by millions of Americans, should no longer exist? One firearms manufacturer (Colt) has already been driven out of the business of selling its products to private citizens entirely; another (Smith & Wesson) has been bludgeoned into an agreement that will probably lead to the same result. From where does any government bureaucrat get the authority to destroy lawful companies simply because that bureaucrat doesn't like the product being sold? In a free society, governed by a Constitution and the Rule of Law, government bureaucrats do not have that authority. But we have allowed them to seize the power to do exactly that.
Whether we govern ourselves by the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and reasoned debate; or allow ourselves to succumb to mass hysteria and the tyrannical rule of unbridled government force, is still up to us. Although dangerously weakened, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not yet been repealed. We still have the right to vote tyrannical government officials out of office, and although our votes are increasingly diluted by electoral fraud, and by the votes of non-citizens and felons, that right has not yet been taken from us. We still have, for now, the right to speak out against those who trample our rights; we still have, for now, the right to contribute money and support to those legislators and would-be legislators who understand and respect the Constitutional restraints on their authority. But as government power and government lawlessness grows, and as our Liberties shrink in consequence, our power to control our government is rapidly disappearing. By our silence, we are selling ourselves and our children into bondage.
From where do the gun banners presume to get the legitimate authority to ban the individual right to keep and bear arms? It is clear that the Second Amendment's reference to "militia" will not suffice, since the Founders clearly described the nature of the 18th century militia; the State constitutions, following the intent of the Second Amendment, clearly demonstrate that understanding; and the Bill of Rights was designed not to limit the rights protected by the Constitution, but to further enhance and protect those rights. It is clear that the "general Welfare" clauses will not suffice, since both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson clearly explained that the "general welfare" concept must operate within the boundaries of the enumerated powers, or else the Constitution itself means nothing; and disarming citizens was clearly not one of the enumerated powers. It is clear that the idea of an "evolving, growing" Constitution will not suffice, since the whole point of a written Constitution is to serve as an immutable structure of rules that remains in force until that structure is changed by the formal amendment process provided for by the Constitution itself. A Constitution that can be "redefined" by the very institutions it is intended to restrain is no Constitution at all.
On what Constitutional foundation do the opponents of the right to keep and bear arms support their beliefs and their agenda? There is none. But the totalitarians in our government and among our population care nothing for the Constitution, which they would like to finally repeal in its entirety; or about the Rule of Law, which they will bend, twist, or ignore as it suits their purpose. They care only about power. The Founders, in their wisdom, gave us the tools to preserve our Freedom against such unbridled government power, and to do so within the structure of our Constitution.
A new link will be established at the home page of this newsletter to combat lies and hysteria with facts. The information will be expanded from time to time, and will contain evidence from a host of sources of exactly what the Founders of our republic intended when they wrote that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The information is here. What we choose to do with it depends on how much we still value our Freedom.
~o~
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
The Right To Keep An Bear Arms Link:
http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/RKBA_Founders.html
A Century of Lawmaking: Debates on the Constitution:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm
James Madison Center:
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/index.htm
The Federalist Papers:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html
Links to individual State Home Pages and State constitutions:
http://www.globalcomputing.com/states.html
Federal and Supreme Court Cases:
http://www.findlaw.com/
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html
http://www.washlaw.edu/
http://www.ilrg.com/caselaw/
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Treasonous agenda of the Trilateral Commission
Posted: June 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."
- Zbigniew Brzeninski, National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter and President Bush as co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisery Task Force; executive director of the Trilateral Commission
My column last week focused on the Council on Foreign Relations and their anti-American agenda. This treasonous operation is another one of the tentacles birthed by the elitists out to destroy our constitutional republic, turn us into a democracy (America is not a democracy!) and eventually merge all nations into a "one world government."
This is real - it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a heinous agenda that is all but complete except for the passage of CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) and nullification of the Second Amendment. If Bush gets his way and CAFTA and FTAA are ratified, you will see another gigantic sucking sound of millions more American jobs going south of the Hemisphere. So far, Utah appears to be the only state to recognize the danger of this destructive treaty (FTAA).
Few Americans really understood back in 1993 what would happen under GATT because few ever heard of it - too many simply bought the propaganda from politicians and the rest were more interested in sports, porn, drugs, booze or fun times. Guess how many members of the entire Congress read GATT? One - former Sen. Hank Brown. He's the only senator who read this 28,000 page treaty and stated emphatically that no way would he vote for it. Yet, the rest of the Senate ratified this insidious treaty without ever reading it. Sadly, the American people continue electing these same sellouts back into office.
During the hearings on this monster, French financier, the late Sir James Goldsmith, testified in front of Ernest Hollings committee. He demonstrated that GATT would gut the American textile market. The following are some quotes from the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 1993, which accurately reflect Sir Goldsmith's statements during the hearings:
Global free trade will force the poor of the rich countries to subsidize the rich in poor countries. What GATT means is that our national wealth, accumulated over centuries, will be transferred from a developed country like Britain to developing countries like Communist China, now building its first oceangoing navy in 500 years. China, with its 1.2 billion people, three Indochinese states with 900 million, the former Soviet republics with some 300 million, and many more can supply skilled labor for a fraction of Western costs. Five dollars in Communist China is the equivalent of a $100 wage in Europe.
It is quite amazing that GATT is sowing the seeds for global social upheaval and that it is not even the subject of debate in America ... If the masses understood the truth about GATT, there would be blood in the streets of many capitals. A healthy national economy has to produce a large part of its own needs. It cannot simply import what it needs and use its labor force to provide services for other countries. We have to rethink from top to bottom why we have elevated global free trade to the status of sacred cow, or moral dogma. It is a fatally flawed concept that will impoverish and destabilize the industrialized world while cruelly ravaging the Third World.
On June 9, 2005, the House voted 338-86 to reject a motion to withdraw congressional approval of the 1994 agreement establishing the Geneva-based trading body (GATT-WTO). Every Congress-critter who voted to stay in this anti-American, new world order operation must be thrown out of office in November 2006 for continuing to abrogate our sovereignty to foreign countries.
The Trilateral Commission is another little known entity that is diligently and methodically working to destroy the sovereignty of this nation and put the United States under foreign rule - it is the twin monster of the CFR. Barry Goldwater was one of the lone voices decades ago trying to warn the American people about this operation. He said of the Trilateral Commission:
The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.
A list of past and present members of the Trilateral Commission can be viewed here. It is imperative to look at the companies and institutions these individuals belong to and then one can begin to connect the dots as to why Congress refuses to abolish the unconstitutional, privately owned Federal Reserve, immediately withdraw from the United Nations and the continuing passage of these devastating trade treaties.
Our Republic is perilously close to being destroyed. This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat or any of these other distractions - it's an American issue. Without question, this factual information is very disturbing to Americans, however, this is about remaining a free and sovereign nation and not falling to communist domination under a world government. William Wallace was depicted saying in the movie, "Braveheart": "What will you do without freedom?" I ask you the same.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Too big to C&P, this really tells how it all started.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Is the Trilateral Commission the secret organization that runs the world?
06-Nov-1987
Dear Cecil:
This may sound off the wall, but how about the straight dope on the Trilateral Commission? All my life I've heard about this "secret" organization that supposedly actually runs the world. What's the real story? --Alton F., San Antonio, Texas
Cecil replies:
Alton, you wound me. You should know by now the only person remotely together enough to run the world is ... well, modesty forbids, but you just wouldn't believe what you can accomplish with a home computer these days. (Sorry about that blip in the stock market, by the way--I definitely gotta keep those floppies out of the taco sauce.)
But on to the Trilateral Commission, or TLC, as it's often coyly referred to. For starters, unless you're a lad of very tender years, it's a safe bet you haven't been hearing about the commission all your life, inasmuch as it was founded in 1973. Second, as you probably already recognize, an organization that everybody already knows about hardly qualifies as "secret." They're in the New York phone book, and if you ask they'll send you a bunch of literature about the organization. Third, while it's your constitutional right to be paranoid, you might at least try to be paranoid about something reasonably up-to-date. The TLC-as-world-conspiracy theory peaked during the early 80s, and has now pretty much gone the way of the hula hoop.
The Trilateral Commission is based on the quintessentially American notion that if we could just get together and talk about stuff, we could solve all the world's problems. Accordingly David Rockefeller, chairman of the Chase Manhattan bank, got together several hundred opinion leaders from North America, Western Europe, and Japan (hence the "tri-" in trilateral). They meet annually to hear speeches, participate in seminars, and exchange idle gossip. In between times the commission puts together task force reports on pertinent issues and publishes a magazine.
The TLC's first executive director was Zbigniew Brzezinski, and such well-known figures as Walter Mondale, Caspar Weinberger, and Paul Volcker have been members. Also on the rolls at one time, mainly because the commission needed some representation from the South, was the then-governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. The prospect of spending hours cooped up with the likes of Walter Mondale would probably send most of us screaming for the exits. But Carter was an impressionable sort who found both the commission's meetings and its members deeply fascinating. He got chummy with many of the latter and appointed more than a dozen to posts in his administration, including Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and of course the redoubtable Brzezinski.
All of this was noted with great interest by the conspiracy buffs, but what really got their juices flowing was the revelation during the 1980 presidential campaign that not only was Carter a member of the commission, so were two of his potential opponents, John Anderson and George Bush. Holy Illuminati, they screamed, the power elite is conspiring to enslave us! They heaped poo on Jimmy and friends and flocked to nonmember Ron Reagan. But then Ron went and signed up Bush and Weinberger, which set off the howling anew.
Among true believers, opinions about what the Trilateral Commission is up to fall roughly into two categories: the merely dubious and the totally insane. The John Birch Society and its confreres see the commission as the latest manifestation of the international conspiracy that is trying to create a one-world totalitarian state, or at least a New World Economic Order. (Before the TLC it was the Council on Foreign Relations and an annual meeting of Western business leaders called the Bilderberg Conference.) The less extreme view is that while the Trilateralists may be well intentioned, the clubby atmosphere tends to create a climate of opinion (either socialist or fascist, depending on whether you're on the far right or far left) that is inimical to America's real interests.
The controversy died out after a short time. Reagan even had a reception for commission members in the White House in 1984. But obviously in a few dark corners the anti-Trilateral flame still burns bright.
REPORT FROM (AS USUAL) BALTIMORE
Dear Cecil:
Twice in recent weeks you have mentioned the Illuminati in your column. In your answer to the question about the Trilateral Commission, you stated that "an organization that everybody already knows about hardly qualifies as secret."
If you know anything at all about the workings of the Illuminati, you must surely know that they virtually always hide their "secrets" in plain sight.
They do this as a sign of their power, and also as a great cosmic joke at the expense of the public (or "robots," as they condescendingly refer to them) because they know that the vast majority of people are too dim to pick up on it.
All the clues are right under our noses and always have been. We just have to open our eyes. An example is the "3172" that can be seen in the bushes at the left side of the Lincoln Memorial on the reverse side of the five-dollar bill. It's a numerical anagram of the 17/23 correlation.
This is an ideal way for the Illuminati to protect themselves.
Anyone who is perceptive enough to figure out what is going on is immediately branded a crackpot and censured by the public or worse, a paranoid schizophrenic, and is thereby censured by the state, i.e., hospitalized, where Illuminati-trained operatives have special techniques designed to actually drive the person insane.
It puzzles me that a man of your intelligence and knowledge could scoff at the Illuminati and compare the TLC conspiracy to a fad like the hula hoop. Have they gotten to you too?
Just in case, and to avoid any further attention from the Secret Chiefs of the Order, I'll sign this ... --Adam Kadmon, Baltimore
Dear Adam:
The 17/23 correlation?
--CECIL ADAMS
MEMBERS PAST AND PRESENT:
Very incomplete list! The complete list doesn't come up, hmmmm!
Michael Hayden Armacost (b. 1937) - also known as Michael Armacost - of Maryland. Born in 1937. Foreign Service officer; U.S. Ambassador to Philippines, 1982-84; Japan, 1989. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2003.
Bruce Edward Babbitt (b. 1938) - also known as Bruce Babbitt - of Arizona. Born in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Calif., June 27, 1938. Nephew of John G. Babbitt. Democrat. Lawyer; Arizona state attorney general, 1975-78; Governor of Arizona, 1978-87; candidate for Democratic nomination for President, 1988; U.S. Secretary of the Interior, 1993-2001. Catholic. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2001.
Stephen Warren Bosworth (b. 1939) - also known as Stephen W. Bosworth - of Michigan; Connecticut. Born in 1939. Foreign Service officer; U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia, 1979-81; Philippines, 1984-87; South Korea, 1997-2001. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2001.
Harold Brown (b. 1927) - Born September 19, 1927. U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1977-81. Jewish. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1981. Still living as of 2000.
Richard Bruce Cheney (b. 1941) - also known as Richard B. Cheney; Dick Cheney - of Casper, Natrona County, Wyo. Born in Lincoln, Lancaster County, Neb., January 30, 1941. Married, August 29, 1964, to Lynne Ann Vincent. Republican. U.S. Representative from Wyoming at-large, 1979-89; U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1989-93; Vice President of the United States, 2001-. Methodist. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom on July 3, 1991. Still living as of 2003.
See also: congressional biography; Internet Movie Database profile.
Books by Richard B. Cheney: Kings Of The Hill : How Nine Powerful Men Changed The Course of American History, with Lynne V. Cheney (1996)
Critical books about Richard Cheney: John Nichols, Dick: The Man Who is President; Clint Willis, The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice. . Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal's War on America
Fiction about Richard Cheney: Henry Beard, The Dick Cheney Code : A Parody
William Jefferson Clinton (b. 1946) - also known as Bill Clinton; William Jefferson Blythe IV; "Slick Willie"; "Bubba"; "Elvis"; "Eagle"; "The Big Dog" - of Arkansas. Born in Hope, Hempstead County, Ark., August 19, 1946. Third cousin twice removed of James Alexander Lockhart; married, October 11, 1975, to Hillary Diane Rodham. Democrat. Rhodes scholar; candidate for U.S. Representative from Arkansas 3rd District, 1974; Arkansas state attorney general, 1977-79; Governor of Arkansas, 1979-81, 1983-92; President of the United States, 1993-2001; delegate to Democratic National Convention from Arkansas, 2000; delegate to Democratic National Convention from New York, 2004. Baptist. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Phi Alpha Delta; Pi Sigma Alpha. Impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Still living as of 2004.
Cross-reference: Abraham J. Hirschfeld; Kenneth W. Starr; Rahm Emanuel
See also: Internet Movie Database profile.
Books by Bill Clinton: Between Hope and History : Meeting America's Challenges for the 21st Century (1996, out of print); My Life (2004)
Books about Bill Clinton: David Maraniss, First in His Class : The Biography of Bill Clinton; Joe Conason, The Hunting of the President : The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton; Gene Lyons, Fools for Scandal : How the Media Invented Whitewater; Sidney Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars; Dewayne Wickham, Bill Clinton and Black America; Joe Klein, The Natural : The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton; Nigel Hamilton, Bill Clinton: An American Journey; Bob Woodward, The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House; George Stephanopolous, All Too Human; Tim O'Shei, Bill Clinton (for young readers)
Critical books about Bill Clinton: Barbara Olson, The Final Days : The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House; Meredith L. Oakley, On the Make : The Rise of Bill Clinton; Robert Patterson, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Securi; Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories; Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton; Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Because He Could; Jack Cashill, Ron Brown's Body : How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future; Christopher Hitchens, No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family; Rich Lowry, Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years; Richard Miniter, Losing Bin Laden : How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
William Sebastian Cohen (b. 1940) - also known as William S. Cohen - of Bangor, Penobscot County, Maine. Born in Bangor, Penobscot County, Maine, August 28, 1940. Republican. Lawyer; mayor of Bangor, Maine, 1971-72; U.S. Representative from Maine 2nd District, 1973-79; U.S. Senator from Maine, 1979-97; U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1997-2001. Unitarian. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2002.
Cross-reference: Charles F. Bass
See also: congressional biography; Internet Movie Database profile.
William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. (b. 1920) - also known as William T. Coleman, Jr. - Born July 7, 1920. U.S. Secretary of Transportation, 1975-77. Black. Member, Trilateral Commission; Alpha Phi Alpha. Still living as of 2000.
Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein (b. 1933) - also known as Dianne Feinstein - of San Francisco, Calif. Born in San Francisco, Calif., June 22, 1933. Democrat. Mayor of San Francisco, Calif., 1978-88; defeated, 1975; candidate for Governor of California, 1990; U.S. Senator from California, 1992-; delegate to Democratic National Convention from California, 2000, 2004. Female. Jewish. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2004.
See also: congressional biography.
Books about Dianne Feinstein: Lisa Tucker McElroy & Eileen Feinstein Mariano, Meet My Grandmother : She's a United States Senator (for young readers)
Thomas Stephen Foley (b. 1929) - also known as Thomas S. Foley - of Spokane, Spokane County, Wash. Born in Spokane, Spokane County, Wash., March 26, 1929. Democrat. Lawyer; U.S. Representative from Washington 5th District, 1965-95; defeated, 1994; Speaker of the U.S. House, 1989-95; U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 1997-; delegate to Democratic National Convention from Washington, 2000, 2004. Member, Grange; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2004.
See also: congressional biography.
Books about Thomas S. Foley: Jeffrey R. Biggs, Honor in the House : Speaker Tom Foley
William Herbert Gray III (b. 1941) - also known as William H. Gray III; Bill Gray - of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pa. Born in Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, La., August 20, 1941. Democrat. Baptist minister; U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania 2nd District, 1979-91. Black. Baptist. Member, Trilateral Commission; Freemasons; Elks; Alpha Phi Alpha. Still living as of 2000.
See also: congressional biography.
Lee Herbert Hamilton (b. 1931) - also known as Lee H. Hamilton - of Columbus, Bartholomew County, Ind. Born in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Fla., April 20, 1931. Democrat. Lawyer; U.S. Representative from Indiana 9th District, 1965-99. Methodist. Member, Trilateral Commission; Rotary; Alpha Tau Omega. Still living as of 2000.
See also: congressional biography.
Carla Anderson Hills (b. 1934) - also known as Carla A. Hills - Born January 3, 1934. U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 1975-77. Female. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2000.
Henry Alfred Kissinger (b. 1923) - also known as Henry A. Kissinger; Heinz Alfred Kissinger - Born in F?rth, Germany, May 27, 1923. Married, February 6, 1949, to Anne Fleischer (divorced 1964) and Nancy Maginnes. Served in the U.S. Army during World War II; university professor; U.S. Secretary of State, 1973-77. Jewish. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973; received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. Still living as of 2003.
Cross-reference: John H. Holdridge
See also: Internet Movie Database profile.
Books by Henry Kissinger: Years of Renewal (1999); Years of Upheaval (1982, out of print); American Foreign Policy (1974, out of print); Diplomacy (1994); Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (1957, out of print); The White House Years (1979, out of print); A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-22 (1957, out of print)
Books about Henry Kissinger: Walter Isaacson, Kissinger: A Biography; Phyllis Schlafly, Kissinger on the Couch; Robert D. Sulzinger, Henry Kissinger : Doctor of Diplomacy
Critical books about Henry Kissinger: Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger
James Albert Smith Leach (b. 1942) - also known as Jim Leach - of Davenport, Scott County, Iowa. Born in Davenport, Scott County, Iowa, October 15, 1942. Son of James Albert Leach and Lois (Hill) Leach; married, December 6, 1975, to Elizabeth Foxley. Republican. Staff, U.S. Rep. Donald Rumsfeld, 1965-66; Foreign Service officer; U.S. Representative from Iowa, 1977-2003 (1st District 1977-2003, 2nd District 2003); defeated, 1974; elected unopposed 1990. Episcopalian. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Elks; Moose; Rotary. Still living as of 2003.
Cross-reference: Thomas C. Hubbard
See also: congressional biography.
Winston Lord (b. 1937) - of New York. Born in 1937. Foreign Service officer; U.S. Ambassador to China, 1985-89. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2002.
Charles Bernard Rangel (b. 1930) - also known as Charles B. Rangel - of Manhattan, New York County, N.Y. Born in New York City (unknown county), N.Y., June 11, 1930. Democrat. Served in the U.S. Army during the Korean conflict; lawyer; member of New York state assembly 72nd District, 1967-70; U.S. Representative from New York, 1971-2003 (18th District 1971-73, 19th District 1973-83, 16th District 1983-93, 15th District 1993-2003); delegate to Democratic National Convention from New York, 1980, 1996, 2000, 2004. Black. Catholic. Member, Trilateral Commission; Freemasons; Alpha Phi Alpha. Still living as of 2004.
See also: congressional biography.
Charles Spittal Robb (b. 1939) - also known as Charles S. Robb; Chuck Robb - of Virginia. Born in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Ariz., June 26, 1939. Son-in-law of Lyndon Baines Johnson; married to Lynda Baines Johnson. Democrat. Lawyer; Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, 1978-82; Governor of Virginia, 1982-86; U.S. Senator from Virginia, 1989-2001; delegate to Democratic National Convention from Virginia, 2000. Member, American Bar Association; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2001.
See also: congressional biography; Internet Movie Database profile.
John Davison Rockefeller IV (b. 1937) - also known as John D. Rockefeller IV; Jay Rockefeller - of Charleston, Kanawha County, W.Va. Born in New York, New York County, N.Y., June 18, 1937. Great-grandson of Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich; grandnephew of Richard Steere Aldrich; nephew of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller and Winthrop Rockefeller; son-in-law of Charles Harting Percy; brother-in-law of Mark Dayton; cousin of Winthrop Paul Rockefeller. Democrat. Served in the Peace Corps; member of West Virginia state house of delegates, 1967-68; secretary of state of West Virginia, 1969-72; Governor of West Virginia, 1977-85; defeated, 1972; U.S. Senator from West Virginia, 1985-; delegate to Democratic National Convention from West Virginia, 2000, 2004. Presbyterian. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2004.
Cross-reference: Jack Canfield
See also: congressional biography.
William Victor Roth, Jr. (1921-2003) - also known as William V. Roth, Jr. - of Wilmington, New Castle County, Del. Born in Great Falls, Cascade County, Mont., July 22, 1921. Republican. Served in the U.S. Army during World War II; lawyer; candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Delaware, 1960; delegate to Republican National Convention from Delaware, 1964; U.S. Representative from Delaware at-large, 1967-70; U.S. Senator from Delaware, 1971-2001; resigned 1970; defeated, 2000. Episcopalian. Member, Trilateral Commission. Died December 13, 2003. Burial location unknown.
See also: congressional biography.
Kurt L. Schmoke (b. 1949) - of Baltimore, Md. Born in Baltimore, Md., December 1, 1949. Mayor of Baltimore, Md., 1987-99. Black. Member, Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2000.
Donna Edna Shalala (b. 1941) - also known as Donna E. Shalala - Born February 14, 1941. University professor; president, Hunter College, City University of New York, 1980-88; chancellor, University of Wisconsin, 1988-92; U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 1993. Female. Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Still living as of 2001.
Cyrus Roberts Vance (1917-2002) - also known as Cyrus R. Vance - Born in Clarksburg, Harrison County, W.Va., March 27, 1917. First cousin of John William Davis. Served in the U.S. Navy during World War II; lawyer; U.S. Secretary of State, 1977-80. Member, American Bar Association; Council on Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission. Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969. Died, of Alzheimer's disease, at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York County, N.Y., January 12, 2002. Interment at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?